A Whale, A Nit & A Hero Go to a Flop

what is your hand?

We shouldn't be interested in trying to get V2 off of AA or KK there. We are mainly hoping they have AK or another hand that we beat.

Would mainly check back here and see what develops, but also if you feel comfortable getting the money in vs the V1's range then putting in a small bet on the flop is fine.

It really depends on V2 tendencies. I think players are getting a bit better at checking hands on low connected boards, so the frequency of their KK, AA is still there to a degree, but would also discount it quite a lot given players who limp reraise will play pretty face up postflop and also the limp/reraise size was pretty tiny. (still could obv have the monsters though)

what do you have?

Oops, 5h5d, edited the post. So H has OESD

Hard to believe V2 would check AA/KK. I lean toward bet. Probably ~$125. If V2 shoves you have a decision to make, but you are obviously behind. Can't imagine V1 has much to continue with.

In game I probably just take my free card 😉 Not ready to gii just yet.

Having the OESD with our pair is really nice in that we can call turn bets much easier.

and also we have less value targets that we actually beat on the flop

-I thought you had something like 99-JJ

-Checking back usually would be my opinion here.

pre is wreckless imo

The 3! or calling the 4!?

I 3! a bit loose because CO was getting out of line, so I widened my range intentionally. I expected V2 to fold a lot (he limp folded numerous times to 3!s earlier). I thought I would either end up HU against whale or taking down preflop a lot. It's loose, but I don't think absurdly loose.

Calling the 4! felt gross because I know I'm behind almost always, but I'm calling $62 into a $212 pot even if whale finds a fold, $274 if she calls (which I believed was always). I'm getting ample odds to set mine IP.

Preflop 3! is bad. You don't want to narrow the field and make the money shallower with this hand.

"You don't want to narrow the field and make the money shallower with this hand."

I absolutely disagree with that. The last thing I want is to go 5-ways to a flop for $15. This hand is bottom of range and is either a 3! or a fold. It's much better to play a 3! pot against 1-2 players than a SRP against 4 and if everyone folds pre, that's the best result for my exact hand.

If V3 was playing a tight opening range, then 55 is an auto-fold. But, I believed V3 was opening overly wide and obviously trying to bully the table and that deviation was begging to be punished - 55 is a very reasonable hand to play a 3! pot IP against a loose open. At least until V2 woke up with an apparent monster.

Not sure why we are worried about getting too shallow - we started 375bb deep. In a 3! pot we are plenty deep enough for all options post flop. SPR would be slightly under 8x.

If I'm going to play a weaker hand, I want to do it IP with the initiative and preferably against 1 other player. I don't want to play bingo where the only way to win the pot is to hit a two outer.

So the question in my mind is whether we want to play the hand or not. If we do, then it has to be a 3!. I'll agree it certainly isn't a 3! 100% of the time, but I believed that in the metagame, it was time to put up resistance. I had let V3 run over the table for about 3 rounds and basically stole the bottom end of my opening range from me turning them into folds. I'll accept that it's a light 3! that shouldn't be made a ton, but it is a call 0% of the time. If I were in the BB, sure. On the BTN, no.

Grunch:

PRE - I probably wouldn't 3B with 55 after V2 limps. This is very likely to go multi-way. Just flat call to set mine. If we hit a set, play super fast.

When the V who hasn't 3B suddenly puts in a 4B after limping in, I think I'd probably just fold.

FLOP - OESD is about as good as it gets if we don't hit a set. No real reason to bet, though. Doubtful V2 is going to fold, and he could very well check-raise. Think I'd just check back and pray we hit our hand on the turn.

Of note, whether we make a straight, or just a set, I'd think either would be good here, so I'd play both super-fast, putting in a raise if V bets.

I call preflop but I get why you are 3! this. However the limp/reraise by V2 was unexpected. Since he has not 3b before this signals a premium hand. I guess if you knew he’d be capable of doing this, you shouldn’t have 3!
I check back on this flop. Getting raised by V2 would be terrible. Just get a free card as we’re very likely behind.

My thoughts on the positives of betting are:

1: I believed that V2 has AA/KK the vast majority of the time. I believed this player was capable of making a big laydown on an unfavorable runout. Betting the flop allows for the option to bluff future streets. If it checks through, AA is pretty committed to calling two streets now.

2: It isn't really great to gii on the flop, but Hs hand does have 40%ish equity against AA or KK, so gii isn't "terrible". H would need about 33% equity to call, and has nearly 40%. 55 isn't loving a x/r, but can call it. My belief was that V checked flop more out of a desire to control the pot than to trap. I think both Vs will under x/r in this position and my hand is "ok" if I'm wrong.

3: If the turn bricks, then it isn't all that great to call a reasonable bet with 20%ish equity. If either V has an overpair, V is very likely to bet OTT after the flop checks through. So checking back on the flop incentivizes a bet that 55 can't sustain. Whereas if H bets flop, V has little incentive to donk most turns. If V2 is going to get adventurous, it would more likely be a x/r flop than donk the turn. This suggests H will frequently have the option to check back the turn and fully realize equity more frequently, as opposed to likely having to fold to a turn barrel or make a call hoping that implied odds make up for poor direct odds.

In short, I believed that betting out would most often put the option in my hands, whether the pot would get bigger OTT. Whereas checking back would face a turn barrel more often than not, and possibly a barrel I couldn't/shouldn't call. If V did shove flop, I could call it off, and I'm not losing too much.

Crazy?

Going 5-ways to the flop with 55 is a great result. Obviously, you usually can't continue without a set or like an OESD as here. However, you are getting great immediate odds. There is already a lot in the pot relative to what you put in, so you can usually get paid off well for a set. This hand does not make many draws, so is not good for bluffing with HU or 3-ways.

"Going 5-ways to the flop with 55 is a great result. Obviously, you usually can't continue without a set or like an OESD as here. However, you are getting great immediate odds. There is already a lot in the pot relative to what you put in, so you can usually get paid off well for a set. This hand does not make many draws, so is not good for bluffing with HU or 3-ways." - Your equity declines more than your pot odds increase, and your ability to realize your equity declines with each additional opponent. Calling with 55 here is definitely a minus EV play, and you have no opportunity to improve the EV by bluffing later streets.

Even with a very good flop, like the one that came out, against four players with wide ranges you have to tread carefully because the probability of being against a hand like 75, 66, 52 if money gets piled in is much higher. Hands that 55 is basically drawing dead against. In a 3! (or 4!) pot, you're much more likely against hands that don't interact with 55, that don't block outs and have 55 drawing thin. Against a 3! caller or a 4!er with this flop, I can have a high enough degree of certainty that if I bet and V ships, I can call off and have 10 outs. If we were 5-way to a flop and I bet, then someone rips it... I have to consider that I might only have 10% equity. That I'm blocking the straight is much less meaningful when there are 8 cards I'm playing against.

As for bluffing, you don't need draws to bluff. A hand like 55 can be a useful bluffing candidate because it unblocks a lot of hands that are autofolds, particularly on flops J or lower (~55% of flops) against a range that is AKQ heavy. There are certainly boards that 55 just has to give up on, but a reasonable portion of the time 55 can pursue a bluffing route in a 3! pot. Overall, 55 is probably -EV 3! vs a CO open, but as I noted, I believed CO was opening too wide and therefore that CO would have to fold more frequently. Taking the pot down preflop is an excellent result.

I expected when I 3! that more often than not I'd end up HU against V1, the whale in the BB who I'm more than happy to play literally any two cards because she was simply terrible post flop. Obviously V2 spoiled that plan when he woke up with a 4! hand, but the last dozen times I 3!, V2 limp folded so his limp was not something I considered as a major factor. Sometimes opponents wake up with aces, that doesn't make it smart to start playing passively preflop.

You would need to tread carefully with 55 on 643 as here multiway, but you are not looking to fold it on the flop. With a set, you don't need to tread carefully. 5-ways, there is big pot, which can get a lot bigger. You have 4 opponents, probably playing marginal suited or high cards, who can hit 2 pair and have difficulty folding. So it is very profitable. The point is to make a net profit, not to increase your chance of winning the hand.

You can 3-bet light with other hands, maybe suited connectors, which play better 2 or 3 -way and you can bluff with if you miss.

"You have 4 opponents, probably playing marginal suited or high cards, who can hit 2 pair and have difficulty folding. So it is very profitable."

Sure, sometimes you are going to win an oversized pot, but you're only flopping a set 11% of the time, and even when you do, you have 60-75% equity against four wide ranges. As opposed to 90%+ equity against one wide range. Yes you want to get the money in when you're that far ahead, but you're way worse off against 4 wide ranges than against one tight range.

For that reason, I'm not trying to get into a multi-way pot with any hand if I can help it. And with only one raised the way to help it is 3!. I'm 3! Or fold 100% of my range button vs CO unless I'm in a game playing big enough that the blinds will frequently fold to a SRP.

If you make the pot bigger and get HU with a small pp, you can never win enough just set mining. So you need to bluff often when you miss, not knowing if you are actually ahead anyway.

The purpose of the 3! wasn't to set mine, the primary reason I 3! was because I believed CO was raising too wide and would therefore overfold. Most of my EV would come from taking the pot down pre. The equity post is just insurance in case he has a real hand. If I believed CO was opening a normal range or bad enough to call a 3! with a wide range, I'd have folded.

Do people fold to 3!s that much in your 1/2 game? You got a cold 4! and a cold call.

45 is my standard 3! when people are opening wide like you say here. I like the sizing for my standard games. Maybe a bit higher if people are calling stations and you actually want people to fold.

I like isolating here though. If villain is opening with any Broadway cards for example then this is a good bet. Starting with a pair IP is always good. And like you said you really don’t want to be going 4 and 5 ways, but if you can set mine in a low SPR pot for stacks then go for it.

I did this yesterday in fact. I raised my own straddle to 36 with 6/6, got 4 callers after they all limped (I knew I wasn’t going to get folds), hit my set and busted a guy who had 10’s. Ez life.

I think you got extremely lucky V2 with AA didn't check-raise huge on the flop. Your 3B-calling range is going to mostly be over-pairs to this board. You shouldn't have any really strong hands in your range on the flop. He mis-played his hand by not just c-betting flop and getting it on the turn.